govinfo:USCOURTS-ncmd-1_25-cv-00471-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
DWAYNE E. FREEMAN, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
SGT KIM, et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
 
 
1:25-CV-471-DAB-JEP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 
pauperis for the limited purpose of conducting a frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). 4/30/26 Order and Recommendation, D.E. 4. Although Plaintiff 
invoked Federal Question Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the Magistrate Judge 
concluded that § 2255 applies only federal prisoners seeking to challenge a federal 
conviction or sentence imposed by a federal court. Id . at 5. Because Plaintiff’s 
allegations concern confinement arising from a state -court judgment and actions 
taken by state jail officials, § 2255 does not apply, and dismissal of that claim is 
appropriate. Id. 
 
The Magistrate Judge further determined that, e ven if the Complaint were 
construed as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, dismissal would still be 
warranted because Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim 
for relief. Id . Plaintiff did not identify an unconstitutional policy or custom 
attributable to the county or sheriff, nor did he plausibly allege constitutional 
violations by the individual defendants. Id . In addition, to the extent Plaintiff 
challenges the validity of his confinement or sentence, such claims are barred 
because Plaintiff seeks damages arising from a sentence that has not been 
invalidated. Id. at 6. 
 
Plaintiff filed an objection stating only that he disagrees with dismissal and 
wishes to have time to review probation documents. 5/18/26 Objection, D.E. 6. The 
Court has conducted a de novo review pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), liberally 

construing Plaintiff’s pro se filing, and concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s 
Recommendation is fully supported by the record and applicable law. Accordingly, 
the Court adopts the Recommendation. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s 
Recommendation that the Plaintiff’s case be dismissed and dismisses it without 
prejudice. It is therefore ordered that the Plaintiff’s Objection, D.E. 6, is overruled, 
and the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, D.E. 4, is accepted. 
 
This the 29th day of May, 2026. 
 
 /s/ David A. Bragdon 
United States District Judge 
 

Passage view · GavelSight